Stephen Bainbridge's Journal of Law, Religion, Politics, and Culture

05/27/2013

The Good Wife's bad politics and awful law

Caught an episode of The Good Wife (4-11, ""Boom De Ya Da") last night. I guess it was an okay episode, as long as you like anti-bank agitprop and pro-trial lawyer propaganda. But it had some seriously bad legal errors:

Alicia forces the bank into settling a case by claiming that the bank is in violation of SEC rules requiring disclosure of the bank CEO's cancer. Problem? There is no such rule. There simply was no violation by the bank.

If Alicia threatened to disclose the illness, it would raise serious questions about blackmail, privacy violations, and other legal issues (maybe even HIPAA).

The mediator made rulings of law. As explained here, "The role of the mediator is to help parties reach a solution to their problem that both parties are happy to accept. The mediator remains neutral throughout the process." In contrast, "In arbitration a third party or parties consider both sides in a dispute, and make decisions that resolve the dispute." In other words, the show had a "mediator" functioning as an "arbitrator." For more on the errors committed in this plot line, go here.

Others have written about the glaring legal errors that occur with regularity on The Good Wife, most particularly in the area of legal ethics. And, indeed, those errors are always risible and often jaw-dropping. On each episode I see at least four or five actions that would get any lawyer sanctioned, if not disbarred. Those actions are usually presented as some form of "good lawyering," rather than, you know, illegal.

The Good Wife, in particular, causes me to go temporarily insane. Their portrayal of life in a “big firm” is so preposterous — the client comes in on Monday with an antitrust case against, say, all of the drug companies; on Tuesday they find the critical case on the issue, which they use, that afternoon, to confront the other side during depositions; at trial — which seems to occur the following day — the judge rules on the critical motion, and the other side gives up in despair.

It’s just so idiotic.

In sum, I don't think I'll become a regular viewer. Anti-capitalist politics and glaring legal errors by a show mainly about lawyers is just not good entertainment in my book.

Comments

The Good Wife's bad politics and awful law

Caught an episode of The Good Wife (4-11, ""Boom De Ya Da") last night. I guess it was an okay episode, as long as you like anti-bank agitprop and pro-trial lawyer propaganda. But it had some seriously bad legal errors:

Alicia forces the bank into settling a case by claiming that the bank is in violation of SEC rules requiring disclosure of the bank CEO's cancer. Problem? There is no such rule. There simply was no violation by the bank.

If Alicia threatened to disclose the illness, it would raise serious questions about blackmail, privacy violations, and other legal issues (maybe even HIPAA).

The mediator made rulings of law. As explained here, "The role of the mediator is to help parties reach a solution to their problem that both parties are happy to accept. The mediator remains neutral throughout the process." In contrast, "In arbitration a third party or parties consider both sides in a dispute, and make decisions that resolve the dispute." In other words, the show had a "mediator" functioning as an "arbitrator." For more on the errors committed in this plot line, go here.

Others have written about the glaring legal errors that occur with regularity on The Good Wife, most particularly in the area of legal ethics. And, indeed, those errors are always risible and often jaw-dropping. On each episode I see at least four or five actions that would get any lawyer sanctioned, if not disbarred. Those actions are usually presented as some form of "good lawyering," rather than, you know, illegal.

The Good Wife, in particular, causes me to go temporarily insane. Their portrayal of life in a “big firm” is so preposterous — the client comes in on Monday with an antitrust case against, say, all of the drug companies; on Tuesday they find the critical case on the issue, which they use, that afternoon, to confront the other side during depositions; at trial — which seems to occur the following day — the judge rules on the critical motion, and the other side gives up in despair.

It’s just so idiotic.

In sum, I don't think I'll become a regular viewer. Anti-capitalist politics and glaring legal errors by a show mainly about lawyers is just not good entertainment in my book.